5 ms·

I agree. Green movements predate the dominance of climate change as an environmental issue; they began in the late 1970s in Germany as a brand of socialism. The

• dgb23 6y ago
  I would agree with your statement if the right was proposing anything of substance in that regard.
  • Udik 6y ago
    Proposing anything of substance would mean having recognized at least in part the validity of the arguments coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum, with the risk of supporting the attached ideology. Which is hard to do. But anyway, here's what the right could propose: let's replace all our energy generation from non-renewable sources with nuclear power. Every single watt of it. I'm sure there would be no objections from that side. And on the left?
    • pjc50 6y ago
      The left objections to nuclear power are rooted in weapons proliferation and concerns about fallout. The proven reactor designs all require uranium enrichment and produce plutonium. That's why Iran's reactor is hugely controversial. The designs that don't do this are either not proven or certainly not widely deployed.
      • Udik 6y ago
        This isn't true. I remember anti-nuclear movements in the 80s and they were rooted in the fear of radiations and nuclear accidents. "The China syndrome" was released in March 1979, a few days before the Three Mile Island accident. When Chernobyl happened of course the public opinion switched en-masse to the anti-nuclear side. The risk of nuclear proliferation was never a major concern- in fact several western NATO countries ended their nuclear power generation plans despite having zero concern with their nuclear waste ending up in the wrong hands.
  • goatinaboat 6y ago
    I would agree with your statement if the right was proposing anything of substance in that regard. The right is proposing nuclear power and returning to more local supply chains therefore cutting the carbon emissions of the shipping industry. Seems pretty substantial to me.
    • esarbe 6y ago
      I'm not convinced. I don't think that local supply chains are a hallmark of right-wing politics. Globalisation and the resulting world-spanning trade agreements were primarily driven by organisations like the WTO. Anti-Nuclear hysterics are not limited to the left and in German (as an example) de-nuclearisation was supported by both the Schroeder and the Merkle (center-left and center-right) governments. It's "renaissance" in the last decade or so has happened on both sides of the aisle.
• esarbe 6y ago
  The problem is that addressing this problem (of global antropogenic climate change ) requires some quite radical changes in the way our society works. And that's not an easy sell. Just take recycling as a similar issue; how do you get people to recycle? You make it expensive to not recycle. But for that you need political will and that requires philosophy and moral values ("desire to protect the environment") to already have a hold in society. It's easiest to attach them to an already existing framework that's compatible to do the heavy lifting. In Europe this was the socialist movement. As soon as the shit really starts hitting the fan, I expect eco-fascism to pop up all over the place. It's only a matter of time.
  • Udik 6y ago
    > addressing this problem (of global antropogenic climate change ) requires some quite radical changes in the way our society works I don't think so. 27% of our CO2 emissions are in electricity generation. Replacing every non-renewable energy source with nuclear we could bring those emissions to zero. Reconverting to electrical our other sources of emissions (heating, transport) where possible could cut another 20-30% of our emissions. That's an easy solution, realtively cheap and feasible with today's technologies, and not requiring massive societal transformations.
    • esarbe 6y ago
      Granted; energy production is the source of a huge part of current CO2 emissions. But even if you could magically turn every coal-burning plant into an nuclear plant; you'd still have to account of 73% of carbon emissions from transportation, industry, residential, commercial and agricultural sources. > Reconverting to electrical our other sources of emissions (heating, transport) where possible could cut another 20-30% of our emissions. Not sure what you mean by this. Transport and heating were never electrical to begin with, were they? Without changing our patterns of resource consumption this will not change. And that will not come without societal transformations that de-emphasise consumerism and with it capitalism to some degree.
    • pjc50 6y ago
      > Replacing every non-renewable energy source with nuclear we could bring those emissions to zero Quite possibly .. in 2040. We need renewables in the meantime.
• esarbe 6y ago
  > I think this marriage between actual environmental concerns and a socialist ideology is the reason of the so called "rejection of science" by the right. I think you're making an important connection here.
  • hackeraccount 6y ago
    I think that when you hear that "Science" supports political ends you disagree with there are 2 choices. You can say that the Science is flawed in some way or that Science is flawed in some way. The appeal of the later is - to my mind - the most important reason to be careful about claiming that Science supports a political position or as is sometimes said "My position isn't political; it's just a fact." It presumes that people who are backed up against a wall will concede the point rather then just destroy the whole edifice i.e. say that if this is what Science says then not only is the conclusion wrong but the process is wrong.
  • Can_Not 6y ago
    Also understating the important equivocation that "taxes" and "any regulation at all" are "socialist ideology" by anti-environmentalists.